USPTO Patents Application 10687508

08/31/05 WED 15:35 FAX 281 834 1231

ECLT FORMALITIES BPC

©072

/ . The election of Group

2. The abstract length wa
RESPONSE TO NOTICE
16, 2004.

vith the species of claims 1 and 4 is confirmed.

objectionable and was amended to a shortened version in the
OF UNCOMPLETE REPLY (NONPROVISIONAL) filed March

3. The disclosure was
both ratio and molar percent
the objectionable items
examples.

obj|§ted to for use of confusing terms in the examples wherein

\vH*e used. The above amendment to the specification corrects

i ■

c onsisHit with the values given in the tables following the respective

m le

As mentioned above i
amending language is consiste
example and removes the co:
precatalyst and catalyst portioi
[00214].

•nf lijig

4., 5. Claims 1 and 4 were
over copending application 10
terminal disclaimer to overco

6., 7. Applicants are unable t
not admit same. Nevertheless,
reference.

Claims 1 and 4 were ft
6,800,700 ("Sun"). Sun disclc
(Tetramethylcyclopentadienyl
Dimethylsilylbis(l-indenyl) zi
polymer coated on a sticky

Attorney Docket No.: 2002B140/2

REMARKS

k Support for Amendment to the Specification, the
with the data in the tables accompanying each amended

term "ratio". Further explanation concerning the
and preparations are provided in paragraphs [00213] and

pmvisionally rejected for obviousness-type double patenting
86951. Responsive thereto, enclosed is an appropriate
the rejection.

determine whether the reference qualifies as prior art and do
e following remarks are provided to distinguish the

d unpatentable under 35 USC 103(a) over Sun et al., US
s a propylene polymerization at 50 degrees C using
duhethylsUyl-t-butylamido) titanium dichloride and
oiiium dichloride with MAO to provide a crystalline powder
ous polymer as given therein at Example 4.

am ph<

Page 67 of 70

I i

PAGE 7WS • RCVD AT 801/2005 4:03:38 PM [Eastern Daylight Time] > SVR:USPTO-EFXRF-6/29 • DNIS:2738300 * CSIO:281 834 1231 • DURATION (mm-SS):29-20

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

08/31/05 WED 15:35 FAX 281 834 1231

ECLT FORMALITIES BPC

B1073

Sun

Other copolymers are
reported or suggested. Also
amorphous polymer reactor (S
asserts that, even if the claim
artisan would have found the
rejection with respect to the
the powder-coated sticky
the amended claims, discloses

U gfrtby

tai fit

cc )Tbpi

p s^nt
an nded

amor idus

Sun is directed to
amorphous polymer so sticky
polymer with particles too
process therein at as low a
associated with the polymer si
line 3). Thus the skilled
as was done by Sun, always

sc tug

addi >nal

i non ill

Sun is also driven to
polymer with tack and strengths
teaches merely adding an
polymer production at the
given). Although Sun teaches
(Sun at column 3, line 36 and
the polymers formed accordin
end of that range which are

Furthermore, while
coating polymer particles,
weight material when
amorphous production proces:
net molecular weight above

operate* \i the

tC^KVLAWNPre»niten\EMCC *

Attorney Docket No.: 2002B140/2

Sun although the presently claimed properties are not
Ms flowing dissolved powder polymer into the sticky
at column 4, lines 55-58 and claims 2-6). The rejection
erties were not inherent in the reference, the skilled
invention obvious. Applicants respectfully traverse the
claims because the claimed properties are not present in
particles of Sun. Further review of Sun, compared to
e! shortcomings of the reference.

usm£ w^o otherwise unusable materials. That is, combining an

-an't be readily retrieved from the reactor, and a crystalline

i

find o be otherwise useful. Sun is motivated to operate the

.| .

tern arjature as possible because of heat transfer problems
t qng to the wall (See Sun at column 2, line 52 to column 3,
artisa is^ led to operate the Sun process at relatively low temperature
at||o;degrees C (see the Sun Examples).

en rely

the sticky polymer problem rather than providing a
i is done by the present invention. Accordingly, Sun
catalyst (or dissolved polymer) to the amorphous
[I operating conditions — 50 degrees C (no pressures are
broad range of amorphous polymer molecular weight (Mw),
•lumn 4, line 22), the skilled artisan readily recognizes that
to the fall teaching of Sun have molecular weights in the high
amorphous and unbranched.

Su offers i

no suggestion of the molecular weight of the powder
the Hailed artisan again will recognize that it is a high molecular
50 degrees C polymerization temperature of the
Thus the polymer combination of Sun is expected to have a
of the claimed ranges.

tl set

Page 68 of 70

PACE 73/75 * RCVD AT 8/31/2005 4:03:38 PM [Eastern Daylight Time] - SVR:USPTO-EFXRF-6/29* DNIS:2738300 • CGID:281 834 1231 ■ DURATION <mnv*s):29-20

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

08/31/05 WED 15:36 FAX 281 834 1231

ECLT FORMALITIES BPC

©074

Attorney Docket No.: 2002B140/2

i

The Invention

The invention as now <J|imed is distinguished from and unobvious over the teachings
of Sun because:

(i) the inventive polyi sris

(ii) the inventive polyijprs
properties; and

(iii) the inventive poly^ijs i

(a) in Sun, two separat
all is available from the powd
of the claim; and

(b) the polymerization
indicate little or no

■1.

ihave tack;

i are branched, providing strength

are a homogeneous polymer or a
homogeneous poljkfcr composition.

The claims are amende for clarity to include at least a minimal level branching index
g' of 0.4 as given in the specif||atii
polymers prepared according 1
amorphous polymer:

ion paragraphs [0025]-[0027]. This distinguishes the
Sjiin which will have little or no branching, typical of

i branching, ius

The powdery coated
the claimed polymers, but
the strength properties of the
The Examiner is directed to
especially paragraph [00106]
achieve the branching of the i

While the process typ
were operated at a
molecular weigjit, homogen

ilymers are prepared, one stuck onto the other so no tack at
cjoated polymer particles, thus failing the Dot T-Peel element

perature and conditions (to the extent given in Sun)
failing the g' element of the claim.

pSItibles of Sun are not only a different polymer material than
als( vill not function to meet the Dot T-Peel test and will not have
/^ntion such as those having a branching index as claimed,
tl pjresent specification at paragraphs [00103] to [001 13],
hich addresses the desirability of an operating window to
eation.

temperatur greater than

jalso a factor deciding process temperature, the Examples

50 degrees C and other conditions to ensure a low
\ branched product, as given in most of the tables following

Page 69 of 70

PACE 74/75 * RCVD AT 8/31/2005 4:03:38 PM [Eastern Daylight TJmej • 8VR:USPTO-EFXRF-6/29 - DNI8:2738300 • C8ID:281 834 1231 * DURATION <mm-ss):20-20

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

08/31/05 WED 15:36 FAX 281 834 1231

ECLT FORMALITIES BPC

the polymerization examples,
examples provide information
not available without branchin,

Attorney Docket No.: 2002B140/2

pie adhesive strength as given in the subsequent tables of the
jhe strength provided by these samples in other tests and

Clearly the polymers o
because they are different mol
requirements of the claims
property claim 65, and the

lin do not meet the elements of the claimed invention

l .

ularly, and because they do not meet the property
Se especially the high Dot T-Peel claims 58 and 95, the strength
bim iil comonomer claim 1 14 for further distinction from Sun.

Reconsideration and al wance of the claims as amended is respectfully requested.

Applicants invite the
issues outstanding which

B aminer

have ot

3f

Date

ExxonMobil Chemical Co.
Law Technology
P.O. Box 2149

Baytown, Texas 77522-2149
Phone:281-834-2429
Fax: 281-834-2495

121075

to telephone the undersigned attorney if there are any
been presented to the Examiner's satisfaction.

Respectfully submitted,

Jen&iVl/Welch
Aftonfey for Applicants
Registration No. 52,348

Page 70 of 70

l3l-i«<»pwe»IOA.DOC

PACE 75/75 ' RCVD AT 8/31/2005 4:03:38 PM [Eastern Daylight T&nej * SVR:USPTO-EFXRF-6/29 ■ DN1S:2738300 ■ CSID:281 834 1231 • DURATION <mm-ss):29-20

BEST AVAILABLE COPY